Piara vs State of Punjab

G. S. Chahal, J.

Piara Singh petitioner, who is a convict and at present confined in the Central Jail,Gurdaspur, by means of this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction that he was entitled to the remissions as detailed in the head note of the petition and has thus undergone the entire sentence of seven years and deserves to be released prematurely.

The petitioner was tried for offence undersection 302/34 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on the basis of case FIR No. 212 dated 11101977 registered at Police Station Gurdaspur. He was convicted for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was confirmed though two of his coaccused were acquitted. The petitioners then filed SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India which was admitted and on 8th December, 1980, he was ordered to be released on bail. The SLP was finally decided on 4th September, 1992 and though the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to Shingara Singh was confirmed, his conviction and sentence for that offence was set aside but was convicted for offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years RI. The judgment was communicated to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide memo of the Supreme Court dated 16th September, 1992. The petitioner ultimately surrendered on 23rd December, 1992. During the period he remained on bail, the State had granted certain remissions vide Annexures P2 to P6. The petitioner claims that he was also entitled to the benefit of those remissions.

There is a dispute about the claim of the petitioner about his immediate surrender to undergo the remaining sentence. He claims that immediately on receipt of the information he approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur and asked him that he was to surrender to jail but he was told that moment the order is received from the Supreme Court, he will be informed of the said order and thereafter he shall be required to surrender. The version put forth by the petitioner in paras 3 and 4 about his approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate, is not supported by any documentary evidence. His oral assertion on this aspect cannot be accepted. As such I will assume that it was only on 23rd December, 1992 that the petitioner surrendered in Jail after the decision of the SLP.

The orders of the Governor vide which special remissions were granted and the benefit of the same was to be given to the convicts, who were on bail, have to be divided into two parts. Annexures R. 2 dated 21st April, 1982; R. 3 dated 7th November, 1985 and R. 4 dated 19th August, 1986 formed one category. So far relevant they may be quoted as under:

(i) Annexure R. 2

No. 1/61/824J/6839, dated 2141982

" xx x xxx xxx

All the prisoners who were convicted before 28th March, 1982 but subsequently released on bail shall also be entitled to the remission only if they surrender in the jail for undergoing the unexpired portion of their sentence .

(ii) Annexure R. 3

No. 1/61/824J/38497, dated 11111985

"xxxxx

All the prisoners who were convicted before 41185 but subsequently released on bail shall also be entitled to the remission only if they surrender in the jail for undergoing the unexpired portion of their sentence.

(iii) Annexure R. 4 "

xxx xxx

All the prisoners who were convicted before 4111985 but subsequently released on bail shall also be entitled to the remission only if they surrender in the jail for undergoing the unexpired portion of their sentence."

The surrender contemplated by these instructions will mean surrender after the bail orders stand cancelled. Similar situation was examined by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Criminal Writ No. 669 of 1986, Jail Parkash & Others v. State of Haryana and it wits observed as under :

"Respondents No. 2 & 5 who were on bail also did not surrender immediately after dismissal of their appeal but they surrendered themselves after two months of dismissal of their appeal. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioners are entitled to the remissions as envisaged in the aid Govt. order dated 11/14 January, 1985."

The petitioner thus cannot claim that he is entitled to any benefit of remission available to the other persons who were on bail and who surrendered in the jail in time as contemplated by Annexures R. 2, R8 and R4.

The remissions granted by Annexures R. 5 and R6 are, however, on different grounds, which are reproduced as under:

i)annexure R. 5.

ii) ..The special remission is subject to the following conditions :

i) The prisoners who are on parole/furlough shall be allowed the benefit only in case they report back in jail in time.

ii) The prisoners who have been released on bail shall be allowed the benefit only if they surrender in jail within 15 days of the receipt of notice in this regard from the Superintendent of Jail concerned from where they had been released on bail .

ii) Annexure R. 6.

i) ... The special remission is subject to the following conditions :

i) The prisoners who are on parole/furlough shall be allowed the benefit only in case they report back in jail in time.

ii) The prisoners who have been released on bail shall be allowed the benefit only if they surrender in jail within 15 days of the receipt of notice in this regard from the Superintendent of the Jail concerned from where they had been released on bail."

In the present case the State does not claim to have issued a notice to the petition to surrender in jail. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the remissions covered by these instructions for delay in himself surrendering in jail for undergoing the remaining portion of his sentence. I allow this petition and give a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner remission available to him as per his category, under remission orders Annexures R. 5 and R. 6 with this direction this petition stands disposed of.